Mens Aid NI
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Funding for Male Victims
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH - December 13, 2011
Support for male abuse victims
A NEW fund to support male victims of sexual and domestic violence is to be launched this week.
Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, told MPs £225,000 would be provided over two years to assist services "focusing explicitly" on men.
She said: "The Government recognises that men can be victims of domestic violence and takes this issue very seriously. "[The new fund] is in addition to the Home Office funding provided each year to the men's advice line, which provides support and signposting services for male victims, and Broken Rainbow, which provides support to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) victims."
Ms Featherstone's comments came as Karl McCartney, the Conservative MP for Lincoln, sought reassurances that all domestic violence awareness campaigns run by the Government would be "clearly aimed" at male both female and male victims.
Ms Featherstone said that was "indeed the case'' and used the example of a recent campaign aimed at both male and female teenagers being abused by their peers.
Mr McCartney said he welcomed the announcement of the new fund, which he said would bring much-needed support for the "victims of this deplorable crime''.
Last year, a report by the campaign group Parity claimed that 40 per cent of all domestic violence victims in the UK were men.
Support for male abuse victims
A NEW fund to support male victims of sexual and domestic violence is to be launched this week.
Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, told MPs £225,000 would be provided over two years to assist services "focusing explicitly" on men.
She said: "The Government recognises that men can be victims of domestic violence and takes this issue very seriously. "[The new fund] is in addition to the Home Office funding provided each year to the men's advice line, which provides support and signposting services for male victims, and Broken Rainbow, which provides support to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) victims."
Ms Featherstone's comments came as Karl McCartney, the Conservative MP for Lincoln, sought reassurances that all domestic violence awareness campaigns run by the Government would be "clearly aimed" at male both female and male victims.
Ms Featherstone said that was "indeed the case'' and used the example of a recent campaign aimed at both male and female teenagers being abused by their peers.
Mr McCartney said he welcomed the announcement of the new fund, which he said would bring much-needed support for the "victims of this deplorable crime''.
Last year, a report by the campaign group Parity claimed that 40 per cent of all domestic violence victims in the UK were men.
Monday, 12 December 2011
SOCIAL WORKERS 'SEX UP ABUSE CLAIMS TO SNATCH CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION'
Rffj say: The Sunday Express today prints the latest in a shocking series of media indictments against the so-called Child Protection Services in the UK. We would like to thank the Sunday Express, the reporter Ted Jeory and not least the social worker whistleblower for bringing this to the public's eye. We feel, however, that money rules the adoption game, with at least one adoption agency having been targeted for purchase by a major financial institution. The adoption industry now satisfies both ends of the political spectrum in that ultra left wing and feminist forces can engage in their penchant for destroying families whilst capitalists can rake in millions from desperate adoptive parents and, no doubt, generous bonuses from local authorities. Millions of pounds that could be spent supporting families is being pocketed by social workers, fat cats and legal firms intent on destroying them with fraudulent lies. Judges simply rubber-stamp transparently false allegations in kangaroo-court style 'Fact-Finding Hearings' rather than removing them to be dealt with in criminal courts. In one case we know of, no less than 25 false allegations were made with the children maintained in care whilst the parents were forced through months of proving their innocence.
The question that should be asked is.....who is behind this industry and agencies, who buys the shares, and is anybody doing any insider trading?
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear
Sunday December 11,2011
By Ted Jeory Express
SOCIAL workers regularly “sex up” dossiers on problem parents to take children into care and even to put them up for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.
The experienced social worker told a Sunday Express investigation that council managers frequently put pressure on him and colleagues to rewrite reports considered “too positive”.
They demand “more dirt” on mothers and fathers to increase the chances of securing court orders that place their children into care and which boost councils’ Ofsted ratings.
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear destroying innocent families.
The findings were last night called a “national scandal” by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who is demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system.
The source said social workers’ behaviour dramatically and needlessly changed after full details of the 2007 death of Baby Peter Connelly in Haringey, north London, emerged three years ago.
We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families
The whistleblower, a father who works for a large authority in the south of England, said: “We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families.
“Personally, I’ve written reports and been told ‘You are too positive with this family. We’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative’.
“Although it goes against what you feel is right, you feel under an obligation.”
He went on: “In order to get a child through to a child protection conference, we’re told to make the situation look bad, and worse than it actually is.
“We don’t necessarily make things up but we can change the emphasis.”
He said these reports were used to take children out of a family home and in many cases placed for adoption. “It destroys families, but the newer, younger social workers see this as the norm, they just want to toe the line with their bosses and that’s worrying.”
He also raised serious concerns about council-appointed psychologists biased in favour of their paymasters and what he considered nebulous concepts of emotional abuse and “attachment theories”.
He added: “These psychologists create such a high standard of parenting that most of us would fail.”
Mr Hemming said: “I congratulate the Sunday Express in unearthing this national scandal. A number of whistleblowers have come to me to explain how expert evidence is at times sexed up and at other times plainly wrong in the Family Courts.
“Taking the wrong children into care on the basis of sexed-up dossiers and meaningless psychobabble results in other children being left to die such as Baby P.
“Parliament must act to sort out the child protection system.”
The question that should be asked is.....who is behind this industry and agencies, who buys the shares, and is anybody doing any insider trading?
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear
Sunday December 11,2011
By Ted Jeory Express
SOCIAL workers regularly “sex up” dossiers on problem parents to take children into care and even to put them up for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.
The experienced social worker told a Sunday Express investigation that council managers frequently put pressure on him and colleagues to rewrite reports considered “too positive”.
They demand “more dirt” on mothers and fathers to increase the chances of securing court orders that place their children into care and which boost councils’ Ofsted ratings.
The whistleblower said authorities’ worries of another Baby P had created a climate of fear destroying innocent families.
The findings were last night called a “national scandal” by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who is demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system.
The source said social workers’ behaviour dramatically and needlessly changed after full details of the 2007 death of Baby Peter Connelly in Haringey, north London, emerged three years ago.
We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families
The whistleblower, a father who works for a large authority in the south of England, said: “We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families.
“Personally, I’ve written reports and been told ‘You are too positive with this family. We’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative’.
“Although it goes against what you feel is right, you feel under an obligation.”
He went on: “In order to get a child through to a child protection conference, we’re told to make the situation look bad, and worse than it actually is.
“We don’t necessarily make things up but we can change the emphasis.”
He said these reports were used to take children out of a family home and in many cases placed for adoption. “It destroys families, but the newer, younger social workers see this as the norm, they just want to toe the line with their bosses and that’s worrying.”
He also raised serious concerns about council-appointed psychologists biased in favour of their paymasters and what he considered nebulous concepts of emotional abuse and “attachment theories”.
He added: “These psychologists create such a high standard of parenting that most of us would fail.”
Mr Hemming said: “I congratulate the Sunday Express in unearthing this national scandal. A number of whistleblowers have come to me to explain how expert evidence is at times sexed up and at other times plainly wrong in the Family Courts.
“Taking the wrong children into care on the basis of sexed-up dossiers and meaningless psychobabble results in other children being left to die such as Baby P.
“Parliament must act to sort out the child protection system.”
11 December 2011: NORGROVE PANEL SPUN A PACK OF LIES TO GOVERNMENT
From the horse's mouth, report from Australia shows how Norgrove chose to deceive the UK Government, manufacturing false figures from Australia to back up his ideologically driven and pathological lies intended to undermine shared parenting. One can only presume his integrity was affected later in life by the family law professionals whose close company he preferred during the wasteful days of the Family Justice Review. Let's hope, during his career as an accountant, that he did not similarly produce reports to order.
An article by:
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
Canberra
3 December 2011
Norgrove Committee’s failure to recommend in favour of “meaningful relationships with both parents”
is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
Norgrove Committee’s misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
An article in The Guardian of 3 November 2011 by Owen Boycott on the report of the (UK) “Norgrove” Family Justice Review states that:
“according to (the) long-awaited report on family law… Fathers who have gone through divorce or separation will not be granted a legal right to guarantee that their child has ‘a meaningful relationship with both parents’,
“The Family Justice Review draws back from one of its key interim recommendations that had raised the hopes of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice, which campaigns for improved paternal access rights …
“… it is the review's decision on whether there should be a legal right for the child to continue having a ‘meaningful relationship with both parents’ that appears to have been most problematic.........
“In its introduction, it states: ‘We are aware that some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption around shared parenting and to step back even from the recommendations we made in this respect in our interim report.
"The evidence we received showed the acute distress experienced by parents who are unable to see their children after separation. This is an issue we know countries around the world try to tackle, and fail.
"Our conclusion was reached reluctantly but clearly. The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children.
“Many fathers and grandfathers who had submitted evidence to review had supported it as an ‘important step’, the report notes, ‘reflecting how society has changed and give hope to the thousands of fathers who wish to have an active and appropriate engagement in their child's upbringing’.
“But countries such as Australia, where a similar right was established in 2006, the report explained, had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations. ‘As a result we withdraw the
recommendation that a statement of 'meaningful relationship' be inserted in the legislation.’"
The Facts
The above claim in the Norgrove report that Australia “had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations” after the 2006 reforms to family law is completely wrong.
In fact, there was a sharp decline in litigation in the Australian family law system over the period. The total number of applications filed in the family court system in Australia between 2003-04 and 2008-09, as published in court annual reports, were as follows.
The number of applications for final orders in children’s matters declined by 22% - from 18,752 in 2005-06 to 14,549 in 2008-09 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2009).
The AIFS report of December 2009 noted that “There is evidence of fewer postseparation disputes being responded to primarily via the use of legal services and more being responded to primarily via the use of family relationship services. This suggests a cultural shift whereby a greater proportion of post-separation disputes over children are being seen and responded to primarily in relationship terms.”
Ex-Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
In a BBC panel discussion on 3 November 2011, Mr Ed Balls, Children’s Secretary in the previous Labour Government, claimed, in relation to the Australian experience, that:
Youtube link to Question Time (Ed balls from 2m 40s)
“I did commission the (Norgrove) report, precisely because I was worried about
these issues around fathers’ access and grandparents’ access too, and in the
interim report as I understand it Mr Norgrove did say he wanted to look at the
issue of having a legal right of fathers. He then went and studied some of the
international experiences and in particular the Australian experience where this
was done for five or six years and the result was that after establishing the legal
right there was a huge increase in the number of child custody cases which moved
from mediation to long protracted court battles, and, as I understand it, made it
more likely that you would end up with a legal battle that would be very
damaging to children rather than being sorted out through mediation.”
This repeats the seriously incorrect statements made in the Norgrove report.
The actual situation is that:
The 2006 Australian reforms (1) incorporated a rebuttable assumption of equal parental responsibility and (2) required courts in appropriate cases (i.e., where safe and reasonably practicable) to consider whether shared parenting time should be ordered;
The percentage of separating couples who (either by consent or court order) adopted equal shared parenting or some closely similar arrangement in Australia increased over the first five years after the 2006 reform from 7% to 16%;
Not only was there a very large reduction in family law litigation following the 2006 Australian reforms, a much higher percentage of the litigation is now handled by the Federal Magistrates Courts, which deal with the less complex cases;
Far from the Australian 2006 reforms being a failure, the AIFS in its 2009 evaluation of the reforms concluded that:
“The philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and service professionals”,
and that a large majority of parents believe that shared parenting is working well.
Numerous opinion polls in Australia have confirmed those assessments.
The views of the UK Government
In contrast to the remarks of the ex-Children’s Secretary UK, the comments by the current Home Secretary during the BBC discussion about shared parenting were accurate, perceptive, and positive.
It is important that the UK government understands the misleading nature of the anti-shared parenting propaganda to which it is being subjected by radical feminists from Australia and elsewhere.
Applying the Norgrove Committee’s arguments to correct information about trends in litigation in Australia would reasonably lead to the conclusion that (1) a presumption of shared parental responsibility, together with (2) encouragement for “meaningful relationships with both parents” should be an essential part of family law reform in the UK (as elsewhere).
Without that as part of its recommendations, the Norgrove review will almost certainly fail to meet its purported objectives.
As remarked by Amanda Platell in “Mail Online” on 2 December 2011:
“David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review is a misguided piece of outdated, sexist nonsense which enshrines in law a mother’s unassailable right to raise her children -alone.
“Mr Norgrove decrees that fathers should have no legal right to enjoy time with their children when a relationship ends ... He claims his review is all based on what’s ‘best for the child’. Yet he ignores decades of research that shows children from broken homes benefit from maintaining a stable, constant
relationship with their mothers and their fathers, as well as with their extended family.
“Guilty till proved innocent is the dictum for dads in the Family Law Courts.
“David Cameron has long promised his will be the most family-friendly government in history. He can prove it by condemning Mr Norgrove’s unjust Anti-Family Review andenshrining in law the
right of every decent father to a fair share in the raising of his children.”
In view of the significance of the above issues for UK Government policy, it would be useful for the above information about the Australian experience to be passed on to other interested persons and groups.
Regards
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
An article by:
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
Canberra
3 December 2011
Norgrove Committee’s failure to recommend in favour of “meaningful relationships with both parents”
is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
Norgrove Committee’s misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
An article in The Guardian of 3 November 2011 by Owen Boycott on the report of the (UK) “Norgrove” Family Justice Review states that:
“according to (the) long-awaited report on family law… Fathers who have gone through divorce or separation will not be granted a legal right to guarantee that their child has ‘a meaningful relationship with both parents’,
“The Family Justice Review draws back from one of its key interim recommendations that had raised the hopes of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice, which campaigns for improved paternal access rights …
“… it is the review's decision on whether there should be a legal right for the child to continue having a ‘meaningful relationship with both parents’ that appears to have been most problematic.........
“In its introduction, it states: ‘We are aware that some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption around shared parenting and to step back even from the recommendations we made in this respect in our interim report.
"The evidence we received showed the acute distress experienced by parents who are unable to see their children after separation. This is an issue we know countries around the world try to tackle, and fail.
"Our conclusion was reached reluctantly but clearly. The law cannot state a presumption of any kind without incurring unacceptable risk of damage to children.
“Many fathers and grandfathers who had submitted evidence to review had supported it as an ‘important step’, the report notes, ‘reflecting how society has changed and give hope to the thousands of fathers who wish to have an active and appropriate engagement in their child's upbringing’.
“But countries such as Australia, where a similar right was established in 2006, the report explained, had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations. ‘As a result we withdraw the
recommendation that a statement of 'meaningful relationship' be inserted in the legislation.’"
The Facts
The above claim in the Norgrove report that Australia “had seen an increase in litigation, creating even more legal confrontations” after the 2006 reforms to family law is completely wrong.
In fact, there was a sharp decline in litigation in the Australian family law system over the period. The total number of applications filed in the family court system in Australia between 2003-04 and 2008-09, as published in court annual reports, were as follows.
The number of applications for final orders in children’s matters declined by 22% - from 18,752 in 2005-06 to 14,549 in 2008-09 (Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2009).
The AIFS report of December 2009 noted that “There is evidence of fewer postseparation disputes being responded to primarily via the use of legal services and more being responded to primarily via the use of family relationship services. This suggests a cultural shift whereby a greater proportion of post-separation disputes over children are being seen and responded to primarily in relationship terms.”
Ex-Secretary of State for Children, Schools, and Families misrepresentation of the Australian experience with shared parenting
In a BBC panel discussion on 3 November 2011, Mr Ed Balls, Children’s Secretary in the previous Labour Government, claimed, in relation to the Australian experience, that:
Youtube link to Question Time (Ed balls from 2m 40s)
“I did commission the (Norgrove) report, precisely because I was worried about
these issues around fathers’ access and grandparents’ access too, and in the
interim report as I understand it Mr Norgrove did say he wanted to look at the
issue of having a legal right of fathers. He then went and studied some of the
international experiences and in particular the Australian experience where this
was done for five or six years and the result was that after establishing the legal
right there was a huge increase in the number of child custody cases which moved
from mediation to long protracted court battles, and, as I understand it, made it
more likely that you would end up with a legal battle that would be very
damaging to children rather than being sorted out through mediation.”
This repeats the seriously incorrect statements made in the Norgrove report.
The actual situation is that:
The 2006 Australian reforms (1) incorporated a rebuttable assumption of equal parental responsibility and (2) required courts in appropriate cases (i.e., where safe and reasonably practicable) to consider whether shared parenting time should be ordered;
The percentage of separating couples who (either by consent or court order) adopted equal shared parenting or some closely similar arrangement in Australia increased over the first five years after the 2006 reform from 7% to 16%;
Not only was there a very large reduction in family law litigation following the 2006 Australian reforms, a much higher percentage of the litigation is now handled by the Federal Magistrates Courts, which deal with the less complex cases;
Far from the Australian 2006 reforms being a failure, the AIFS in its 2009 evaluation of the reforms concluded that:
“The philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and service professionals”,
and that a large majority of parents believe that shared parenting is working well.
Numerous opinion polls in Australia have confirmed those assessments.
The views of the UK Government
In contrast to the remarks of the ex-Children’s Secretary UK, the comments by the current Home Secretary during the BBC discussion about shared parenting were accurate, perceptive, and positive.
It is important that the UK government understands the misleading nature of the anti-shared parenting propaganda to which it is being subjected by radical feminists from Australia and elsewhere.
Applying the Norgrove Committee’s arguments to correct information about trends in litigation in Australia would reasonably lead to the conclusion that (1) a presumption of shared parental responsibility, together with (2) encouragement for “meaningful relationships with both parents” should be an essential part of family law reform in the UK (as elsewhere).
Without that as part of its recommendations, the Norgrove review will almost certainly fail to meet its purported objectives.
As remarked by Amanda Platell in “Mail Online” on 2 December 2011:
“David Norgrove’s Family Justice Review is a misguided piece of outdated, sexist nonsense which enshrines in law a mother’s unassailable right to raise her children -alone.
“Mr Norgrove decrees that fathers should have no legal right to enjoy time with their children when a relationship ends ... He claims his review is all based on what’s ‘best for the child’. Yet he ignores decades of research that shows children from broken homes benefit from maintaining a stable, constant
relationship with their mothers and their fathers, as well as with their extended family.
“Guilty till proved innocent is the dictum for dads in the Family Law Courts.
“David Cameron has long promised his will be the most family-friendly government in history. He can prove it by condemning Mr Norgrove’s unjust Anti-Family Review andenshrining in law the
right of every decent father to a fair share in the raising of his children.”
In view of the significance of the above issues for UK Government policy, it would be useful for the above information about the Australian experience to be passed on to other interested persons and groups.
Regards
Jim Carter
Shared Parenting Council of Australia
LIB DEMS THE CLOSET LAWYERS WHO LEECH OFF MEN USING DV LAWS
The Lib Dem's show their true colours today with more disgusting Domestic Violence laws aimed at fleecing men and to line the pockets of the lawyers that control the agenda of another nasty party disguised as some sort of good guys.
We are sick and tired of these crooks suggesting they are trying to protect women from all the bad men when it is a means for the higher echelons of the legal system, full of freemasons within the Liberal democrats who use their political position to further impose vile DV laws that manipulate men in divorce leaving them asset stripped, homeless and bankrupt while LAWYERS in the Lib Dem party add more stolen homes to their property portfolio's.
They , like the tory's are the utter scum and dregs of the earth with ulterior financial motives to give ever more powers to dodgy judges and lawyers who continue to misuse the law for their own financial advantage.
Some quotes from their latest legal mafia slant.
"In the profession and the party-campaigning for justice for all"
Unless you're a man with assets and property and who they can target using a dodgy DV agenda.
"Men who are 'too controlling' could face criminal charges as law on domestic violence is tightened up"
In other words 'Shout at your spouse and lose your house'.
"Bullies who use psychological abuse to control their partners could face criminal charges, it emerged today"
It is the Lib Dems and their bully boy lawyers and judges that are the biggest abusers thieving mens assets on a grand scale. We have vast experience of how Lib Dem MP's and councillors use malicious social work and doctors reports to run a legal aid racket making millions from sources they already control.
The legal aid lawyer millionaires behind the Lib Dems are as criminal as any wee ned and thieving far more than the odd video recorder or tv.
Lib Dem show their true colours as lawyers within their ranks using outrageous biased DV laws to control and financially ruin men
Lib dems the party of lawyers: The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association
--
INTERNATIONAL MENS ORGANISATION
http://www.intmensorg.info
BACK UP WEB ADDRESS
http://www.internationalmensorganisation.info
We are sick and tired of these crooks suggesting they are trying to protect women from all the bad men when it is a means for the higher echelons of the legal system, full of freemasons within the Liberal democrats who use their political position to further impose vile DV laws that manipulate men in divorce leaving them asset stripped, homeless and bankrupt while LAWYERS in the Lib Dem party add more stolen homes to their property portfolio's.
They , like the tory's are the utter scum and dregs of the earth with ulterior financial motives to give ever more powers to dodgy judges and lawyers who continue to misuse the law for their own financial advantage.
Some quotes from their latest legal mafia slant.
"In the profession and the party-campaigning for justice for all"
Unless you're a man with assets and property and who they can target using a dodgy DV agenda.
"Men who are 'too controlling' could face criminal charges as law on domestic violence is tightened up"
In other words 'Shout at your spouse and lose your house'.
"Bullies who use psychological abuse to control their partners could face criminal charges, it emerged today"
It is the Lib Dems and their bully boy lawyers and judges that are the biggest abusers thieving mens assets on a grand scale. We have vast experience of how Lib Dem MP's and councillors use malicious social work and doctors reports to run a legal aid racket making millions from sources they already control.
The legal aid lawyer millionaires behind the Lib Dems are as criminal as any wee ned and thieving far more than the odd video recorder or tv.
Lib Dem show their true colours as lawyers within their ranks using outrageous biased DV laws to control and financially ruin men
Lib dems the party of lawyers: The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association
--
INTERNATIONAL MENS ORGANISATION
http://www.intmensorg.info
BACK UP WEB ADDRESS
http://www.internationalmensorganisation.info
Woman deceived man into marriage
A MAN whose bride did not tell him she had AIDS has lost a battle to have his marriage declared void.
The court case is believed to be the first of its kind in Australia.
A court heard that the wife, in her 30s, was diagnosed with AIDS in 2006.
The husband, in his 50s, said that if he had known she had AIDS he never would have married her the following year.
The wife filed for divorce last year but the husband asked the court to dismiss the application and grant a decree of nullity “on the ground of fraud”.
It was revealed he wanted a decree of nullity rather than having the marriage dissolved because he believed it would mean the wife would not be able to pursue him for a property settlement.
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia last week rejected the man’s bid.
It also said the husband was mistaken in his view there could be no property settlement if the marriage was found to be void.
The husband claimed the case was the first where a court had been asked to consider an application for nullity on the basis that one of the parties had failed to disclose they suffered from a communicable disease that could lead to the death of the other party.
It is not known if the husband contracted the AIDS virus.
Slater & Gordon family law expert Ian Shann told the Herald Sunthe moral of the case was simple: “Check out people’s stories before you marry them.”
Had the man been successful it would have opened Pandora’s Box, Mr Shann said.
“I don’t think there’s much difference between lying about your health or lying about your financial circumstances or lying about your financial intentions,” he said.
A lower court dismissed the husband’s application for a decree of nullity last year and he lodged his appeal in the Full Court of the Family Court.
The Marriage Act says a marriage is void in the event that “the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because … it was obtained by … fraud”.
The Full Court said the wife’s failure to inform the husband of her condition “did not vitiate the husband’s consent to marriage”.
In the earlier judgment, a judge said there was no question the husband married the woman he thought he was marrying and the parties went through what they knew to be a valid marriage ceremony.
Mr Shann said grounds for getting a decree of nullity included bigamy, being too young to be married, being in a phony marriage, being pressured into a marriage and a case of fraud, such as mistaken identity.
“This particular case did not fall within any of those circumstances, although the wife clearly lied and although the husband was clearly placed in a precarious position because of the lie,” Mr Shann said.
The wife did not participate in the hearing.
Shelley Hadfield | hadfields@heraldsun.com.au
The court case is believed to be the first of its kind in Australia.
A court heard that the wife, in her 30s, was diagnosed with AIDS in 2006.
The husband, in his 50s, said that if he had known she had AIDS he never would have married her the following year.
The wife filed for divorce last year but the husband asked the court to dismiss the application and grant a decree of nullity “on the ground of fraud”.
It was revealed he wanted a decree of nullity rather than having the marriage dissolved because he believed it would mean the wife would not be able to pursue him for a property settlement.
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia last week rejected the man’s bid.
It also said the husband was mistaken in his view there could be no property settlement if the marriage was found to be void.
The husband claimed the case was the first where a court had been asked to consider an application for nullity on the basis that one of the parties had failed to disclose they suffered from a communicable disease that could lead to the death of the other party.
It is not known if the husband contracted the AIDS virus.
Slater & Gordon family law expert Ian Shann told the Herald Sunthe moral of the case was simple: “Check out people’s stories before you marry them.”
Had the man been successful it would have opened Pandora’s Box, Mr Shann said.
“I don’t think there’s much difference between lying about your health or lying about your financial circumstances or lying about your financial intentions,” he said.
A lower court dismissed the husband’s application for a decree of nullity last year and he lodged his appeal in the Full Court of the Family Court.
The Marriage Act says a marriage is void in the event that “the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because … it was obtained by … fraud”.
The Full Court said the wife’s failure to inform the husband of her condition “did not vitiate the husband’s consent to marriage”.
In the earlier judgment, a judge said there was no question the husband married the woman he thought he was marrying and the parties went through what they knew to be a valid marriage ceremony.
Mr Shann said grounds for getting a decree of nullity included bigamy, being too young to be married, being in a phony marriage, being pressured into a marriage and a case of fraud, such as mistaken identity.
“This particular case did not fall within any of those circumstances, although the wife clearly lied and although the husband was clearly placed in a precarious position because of the lie,” Mr Shann said.
The wife did not participate in the hearing.
Shelley Hadfield | hadfields@heraldsun.com.au
Monday, 29 August 2011
Absent fathers have rights too
In the aftermath of last week’s riots, there has been a torrent of evidence and opinion about the detrimental affect of absent fathers, followed by outraged indignation at anything that might constitute criticism of single mothers.
It is a fact that one in three children whose parents split up loses contact with their fathers but in many cases, that is because of a family justice system that still favours the mother as the “better” parent. Mum gets to stay in the family home while Dad is forced to move out, maybe staying with friends or renting but invariably unable to afford to create a second home for the children, because he’s having to pay their mother maintenance.
Mum gets a new boyfriend who moves in to the family home, he doesn’t like the contact with the ex and gradually the visits become more difficult and a bargaining tool where the children are the currency. Hardly surprising then that for many men, the gradual disintegration before their eyes of what they once loved becomes too much to bear and they walk away. Yes, of course that is simplistic and many people manage to make sensible shared parenting arrangements that work just as there are many women and children abandoned men. And yes, there have been some long overdue reforms to the Family Justice system but there are still far too many men who are “Mac Dads” , with nowhere else to go on the odd Saturdays they are allowed to see their children apart from a burger bar – hardly conducive to maintaining and nurturing a relationship. Grandparents and other family members have been excluded post separation through an adversarial system that forces families to take sides and children are goods for barter and all reinforced by the lazy journalism in which women “ struggle “ to bring up children and men rarely get any credit.
I am absolutely committed to equality between men and women in every field, be it employment rights, pay, healthcare and access to opportunity but the feminist agenda has inflicted some terrible and pernicious damage on society – and men in particular. Women of my generation campaigned for equality and naively believed we could have it all. We now know that not to be true and have, to a certain extent, allowed what Shaun Bailey called the “nationalisation of child care” to happen right under our noses because it was more acceptable than facing the consequences which in our hearts we know to be true; if your kids are being cared for by someone else for 12 hours a day – who has the most influence on them? And so the compensation of gifts and toys and rubbish food and late nights and no discipline seep in to our homes.
For the father that abandons his partner and children, there will also be mothers who breed from serially dysfunctional relationships with different men but while we may tut in private, rarely does anyone raise the question whether the children would be better with their birth father and he given the social and financial support to make a home for them. We talk about parenting skills but little about how to manage parenting when a relationship breaks down.
The disaster that was the Child Support Agency and cock-up of CAFCASS were ill thought out and extremely damaging, based on a notion of threat and retribution against men – who were in the main those who most affected.
Not all men are potential rapists, nor are they potential paedophiles, abusers or violently inclined towards women. But it is hardly surprising that few want to become primary school teachers or social workers when they are treated as pariahs by the women around them. The insidious notion that men are to blame (bankers, politicians, greedy capitalists – mainly men ) more than women for the breakdown in law and order we saw last week is completely wrong and if we have achieved anything out of the past decades of feminism, then we should have the confidence to believe in our own sons, and have the balls to stop demonising men just because we can get away with it in the name of equality.
Article sourced from Iaindale.com …. original article can be found here
Misandry in the Media: RADAR Expands its Focus
Misandry, simply defined, is the pathological hatred of men and boys. It is the analog to misogyny, but with the bigotry and rage targeted at males.
Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, two scholars in the field of religious studies at McGill University in Montreal, popularized the word "misandry" in a series of books on the topic: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001); Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006); Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010).
Nathanson and Young describe misandry as "a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society, 'a collectively shared and culturally propagated worldview, not a personal emotion such as dislike or anger'"1.
As one would expect from the Nathanson and Young definition, misandry is propagated by the media. A vivid example of this occurred late last year on CNN, the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in News." Interviewing the former Lorena Bobbitt (now using the name Lorena Gallo), who in in 1993 cut off her husband John's penis with a kitchen knife, CNN national correspondent Alina Cho displayed both a shocking disregard for John Bobbitt's ordeal and an appalling camaraderie with a woman who justified sexually mutilating her husband by telling the police, "He always have orgasm [sic], and he doesn't wait for me to have orgasm. He's selfish."2
ALINA CHO, national correspondent, CNN:
Her name is Lorena Gallo, but back then on news programs and the subject of late-night comedians, she was Lorena Bobbitt. She's remembered as the wife who employed a – shall we say, dramatic – response to an abusive relationship with her then husband John Wayne-Bobbitt. But in the nearly two decades since then she started a new life. She's been in a long-term relationship, thirteen years strong. She has a five year-old daughter. And while she works as a part-time hairdresser and real estate agent, she says her true passion is counseling domestic violence victims through her organization.
(...)
CHO:
I have to ask you this. As you well know, there was a time when joking about the Bobbitts was a national pastime. I wonder after all of these years – are you finally able to laugh about it?
LORENA BOBBITT (nee GALLO):
I finally am. And it took a lot of time, it took a lot of years, and definitely a lot of – I went to psychologists, and thanks to the doctors, the therapies I'm here, and I'll be able to now basically start all over again and start a new relationship and have a family and basically I can laugh now3.
More recently, early this year, Brad Womack, returning to the reality show The Bachelor for a second season, was slapped by contestant Chantal O'Brian on the season premiere show. Before slapping him, she told him: "I watched your season and I have something for you. It's not from me; it's from every woman in America"4. Remarkably, Mr. Womack later stated that while the slap was "very real and very hard," he "deserved it," presumably for his behavior in the previous season. He explained the slap this way: "I think Chantal was trying to make a statement about my past behavior, and make a strong first impression, which she did."5
In the grand scheme of things, a slap to the face, even a hard one, is fairly trivial, but that the The Bachelor producers, Ms. O'Brian, and even Mr. Womack (male guilt?) believe it is acceptable behavior for a reality show contestant speaks volumes about the pervasive disregard for men's rights that currently exists in modern America.
During Super Bowl XLV, Pepsi Max ran an ad in which a black woman repeatedly abuses her black husband. This is supposed to be funny. In the final scene, the woman throws a can of Pepsi Max at his head but misses, hitting a white woman instead. Amazingly, Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times, blogged that the ad was a "toxic package" of "sexism, weird racial overtones and violence against women"6 (emphasis added). No mention is made of the ad's depiction of intentional violence against men.
On June 13, 2011, in a segment entitled "Girls Rule, Boys Drool," New York City's popular NPR host Brian Lehrer interviewed Dan Abrams, legal analyst for Good Morning America and ABC News, to discuss his new book, Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else7. Only on the KKK News Network could one imagine the reverse thesis being advanced, that men, on the whole, are better than women.
Saving the most appalling example for last, we turn to CBS's The Talk, the poor woman's version of ABC's The View. The Talk features a panel of women who discuss current events, including Sharon Osbourne, wife of ageless rockstar Ozzy Osbourne. In his younger, more intoxicated years, he was known for biting the head off a bat and peeing on a monument at the Alamo. But the offensiveness of his antics pales in comparison to Sharon Osbourne's behavior during a recent episode of The Talk.
Last month, on July 11, 2011, a 48-year old Californian woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, cut off her husband's penis, and, unlike Lorena Bobbitt, who threw her husband's penis into a field, threw it the garbage disposal unit and turned the unit on. Osbourne, and most of her co-hosts, found the story hilarious. Osbourne mimicked with her finger what she envisioned the penis looked like as it went down the garbage disposal, and called Becker's act "quite fabulous," adding: "Just imagine that thing whizzing around the disposal, it's like, hysterical." She also made sure everyone knew that she lights candles by Lorena Bobbitt's picture.
To her credit, co-host Sara Gilbert, the executive producer of The Talk, pointed out the obvious double standard: "Not to be a total buzz kill, but it is a little bit sexist. If somebody cut a woman's breast off, nobody would be sitting laughing." Ms. Obourne's disagreed, however. "It's different," she explained, because one is floppy and the other sticks up. Well, there you have it. Severed penises are comedy gold.
RADAR has had some modest success in reforming America's approach to the problem of domestic violence. In fact, the perceived growing power of RADAR was a partial motivating factor for the 2009 hit piece published in Slate.com's Double X entitled: "Men's Rights Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective". In the article, the author, Kathryn Joyce, incorrectly labels RADAR as a men's rights group and laments the effectiveness RADAR and other groups have had in advancing their views.
Truth be told, however, RADAR and other groups with similar concerns have, with a few exceptions here and there, actually been quite ineffective in stemming the tide of unjust and harmful domestic violence policies. In reflecting on our efforts to reform the nation's approach to solving domestic violence, RADAR has concluded that one major reason judges, prosecutors, and legislators have been unreceptive to our message is the pervasive effect that misandry in the media has on shaping their fundamental biases.
In support of her view that RADAR is frightening, Joyce simply states, incredulously, that RADAR believes "that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women's shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives." Joyce finds it so obvious that no right-thinking person could believe such things that she doesn't even bother to try to refute any of them.
Joyce's faith in the justice of the current system takes on a religious quality. It is this kind of blind faith that RADAR must shatter before any meaningful reform will happen.
Going forward, RADAR will focus less on particular laws and more on the nation's anti-male culture. RADAR plans to focus on the prevalence of misandry and the impact of misandry on the nation's approach to domestic violence. RADAR will highlight the media's role in spreading misandry, with media broadly defined to include not just the print, radio, film and television industries but also the messages disseminated by the nations churches and education, including judicial training that often amounts to nothing more than misandristic indoctrination.
Thank you for your continued support. With your help, we can change the culture. Let's do it.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathanson_and_Young
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt#Arrest_and_trial
3 http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2010/12/29/cnn-reporter-gushes-lorena-bobbitt-are-you-finally-able-laugh-about-it#ixzz1Bv6duFBd
4 http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/114581/bachelor_slap_condoned_by_gloria
5 http://www.examiner.com/tv-in-cincinnati/bachelor-brad-womack-says-slap-was-not-criminal-battery
6 http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/super-bowl-fail-halftime-show-and-ads-misfire-big-night-video
7 http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/jun/13/girls-rule-boys-drool/
Date of RADAR Release: August 28, 2011
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://mediaradar.org
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Labor Greens -Shared Parenting Rollback- creating a fatherless society
August 24, 2011 | Category: Family Law changes, Family Law Event, Family Law Reform, Insitutional Discrimination against Fathers, Political Parties
Tags: anti-family legislation, Dads4Kids, Fatherhood Foundation, Rachel Siewert, Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, Warwick Marsh
Media Release: Labor Greens ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ creating a fatherless society
Monday 22 August 2011 at 6.30 pm, the Labor Green’s controlled Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee released their report on the ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Bill 2011 www.aph.gov.au/senate . The Green’s member, Rachel Siewert said, “ The Greens have consistently opposed the equal shared parenting responsibility legislation ” brought into law in 2006.
Warwick Marsh, Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation, said, “ The Senate report and the Green’s comments show what is driving this shocking new anti-child and anti-father legislation. Never before have major changes to Family Law been enacted on any other than bipartisan agreement between the major parties. This proposed legislation is opposed by the Opposition, and rightly so, because it removes the very wise friendly-parent provision, redefines family violence to mean anything anybody wants it to be, and removes any possible penalties for perjury and false accusation in the Family Law Court.
This new legislation, even with new amendments proposed by the Senate Committee, is nothing more than radical feminist ideologically-based anti-family legislation that will ensure the destruction of more families, the suicide of more separated fathers and an increase in the heartbreak of more fatherless children.
Mr Marsh continued, “ The Labor Greens government has embarked on an outright war against fatherhood and marriage. This Bill will soon be law and on Wednesday 24 August 2011, this same Labor Green’s alliance will be promoting homosexual marriage in the House of Reps: which a notable member of parliament pointed out this week is an oxymoron. Marriage is what it is – the union of a man and a woman. To accept anything less, in law, is to rob children of their biological birthright, exactly what the new ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Family Law Amendment Bill 2011 will do for many more Australian children.
A 2009 Galaxy Poll revealed that 86% of Australians, including those in Labor Party heartland, believe that children should be reared by their biological mum and dad wherever possible.”
Dads4Kids calls on all Australian to make a stand and reject the Labor Green’s attack on fatherhood, marriage and children.
We ask Australians everywhere to write to their local Member of Parliament and request them to reject the Family Law Amendment Bill 2011.
For further information:
Warwick Marsh
0418 225 212
Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation
PO Box 542
Unanderra NSW 2526
www.fatherhood.org.au
Tags: anti-family legislation, Dads4Kids, Fatherhood Foundation, Rachel Siewert, Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee, Warwick Marsh
Media Release: Labor Greens ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ creating a fatherless society
Monday 22 August 2011 at 6.30 pm, the Labor Green’s controlled Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee released their report on the ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Bill 2011 www.aph.gov.au/senate . The Green’s member, Rachel Siewert said, “ The Greens have consistently opposed the equal shared parenting responsibility legislation ” brought into law in 2006.
Warwick Marsh, Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation, said, “ The Senate report and the Green’s comments show what is driving this shocking new anti-child and anti-father legislation. Never before have major changes to Family Law been enacted on any other than bipartisan agreement between the major parties. This proposed legislation is opposed by the Opposition, and rightly so, because it removes the very wise friendly-parent provision, redefines family violence to mean anything anybody wants it to be, and removes any possible penalties for perjury and false accusation in the Family Law Court.
This new legislation, even with new amendments proposed by the Senate Committee, is nothing more than radical feminist ideologically-based anti-family legislation that will ensure the destruction of more families, the suicide of more separated fathers and an increase in the heartbreak of more fatherless children.
Mr Marsh continued, “ The Labor Greens government has embarked on an outright war against fatherhood and marriage. This Bill will soon be law and on Wednesday 24 August 2011, this same Labor Green’s alliance will be promoting homosexual marriage in the House of Reps: which a notable member of parliament pointed out this week is an oxymoron. Marriage is what it is – the union of a man and a woman. To accept anything less, in law, is to rob children of their biological birthright, exactly what the new ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Family Law Amendment Bill 2011 will do for many more Australian children.
A 2009 Galaxy Poll revealed that 86% of Australians, including those in Labor Party heartland, believe that children should be reared by their biological mum and dad wherever possible.”
Dads4Kids calls on all Australian to make a stand and reject the Labor Green’s attack on fatherhood, marriage and children.
We ask Australians everywhere to write to their local Member of Parliament and request them to reject the Family Law Amendment Bill 2011.
For further information:
Warwick Marsh
0418 225 212
Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation
PO Box 542
Unanderra NSW 2526
www.fatherhood.org.au
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Solicitor speaks freely
I would like to help in any way I can. I have something of a reputation as a 'lone wolf' when it comes to representing men in difficult matrimonial cases. I cannot claim to have had great success in many of these cases because as you know the legal system in common with the bulk of the rest of our society is handicapped by prejudice. The stereotypes of the bad man and the angelic woman pervade.
I have to say that I was beginning to give up any hope of things changing during my lifetime. In the legal cases when I have had 'success' the human cost has been enormous. What appears to be required for men to succeed in matrimonial cases involving children, is a form of ruthlessness that very few men possess. In one of my cases the woman has taken her own life. In many, the children no longer have any contact with the mother. The only women capable of being challenged by men in these cases are the women who are openly 'deviant' in a way which is recognised by society as being really bad for the children. A man faced with this needs to immediately attack using social services, police and any other means he can summon, before securing court orders etc. He needs to act without pity and without any thought of ever going back. He needs to close his mind to any possibility that he might be premature or that there might be a recovery. Very few men dare to fight in this arena. Most of us are softer, more rounded, mature individuals, who cannot believe that the system can be so unfair to us and that to win we are being asked to transform into something approaching an 'angel of death'. In cases involving women who are not openly deviant in the required manner, men have no chance of success and are probably better to try to arrange some accomodation with the children's mother, rather than fight a fight they will lose. Many would be well advised to try to 'stay in there' for the time being.
All of this of course needs to change. But how do we go about it?
Do you have meetings, members etc?
Today I spent an hour with a senior police officer trying to argue that the way the PSNI are enforcing the harassment legislation is allowing the harasser to have "two free goes" at their victim before there is a prosecution. Sadly the conversation ended with the officer stating that she felt that if I was correct, a change in the law was necessary. I have asked a councillor on Ards Council to raise the issue at a Policing Board meeting, but I am not sure if he will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)